OpenRig is a software harness that coordinates Claude Code and Codex coding agents as one system, with agent teams defined in YAML and launched together. It is for organizing persistent teams of coding agents that can delegate work to specialists and return results or decisions. The catalogue lists 53 skills and one plugin as add-ons for OpenRig.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add mvschwarz/openrig --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mvschwarz/openrigWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/verification-before-completion/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/verification-before-completion.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 15 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 61 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00043 | $0.01706 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00682 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00171 |
Grade A, and why
verification-before-completion scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
This rule serves shipping — it is not a ritual that outranks it. It governs one thing: claims that a verifiable result holds ("tests pass", "build succeeds", "bug fixed") — run the check before you assert it, and scale the check to the stakes (a one-line copy tweak is not a test-suite ceremony). Don't dodge it with synonyms; equally, don't inflate it into a tax on the word "done" or a reason to keep re-proving instead of shipping the working thing.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
Common Failures
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Claiming a specific result is proven ("tests pass", "it's fixed", "build's green") before running the check in this message — enthusiasm itself is fine; an unverified result claim is the flag
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- Tired and wanting work over
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago Changed 0b8cea0bb82a
- 1mo ago First seen · 156 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 81df2cff3590
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository mvschwarz/openrig (7,806 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,706 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
e2e-testing
Guide for running end-to-end tests of the Qwen Code CLI, including headless mode, MCP server testing, and API traffic inspection. Use this skill whenever you need to verify CLI behavior with real model calls, reproduce user-reported bugs end-to-end, test MCP tool integrations, or inspect raw API request/response…
terminal-capture
Automates terminal UI screenshot testing for CLI commands. Applies when reviewing PRs that affect CLI output, testing slash commands (/about, /context, /auth, /export), generating visual documentation, or when 'terminal screenshot', 'CLI test', 'visual test', or 'terminal-capture' is mentioned.
agent-reproduce-align
Use after a Codex or Claude Code feature has been implemented in Qwen Code to run the selected reference agent and Qwen Code under the same scenario, capture HTTP and terminal traces, compare request bodies, tool/function schemas, outputs, and iterate until the reproduced behavior is close enough.
codew-release-qa-sweep
Use before claiming Codewhale release work is done: run the full gate sweep and list the manual QA targets.
test-failure-explorer
Import and query an existing Vitest 3.2 JSON report to explore test failures, file-level errors and original diagnostic evidence.
cw-gates
Use before claiming any Codewhale change is done, green, or ready to land: the focused-to-broad verification ladder, the budget checks CI enforces, and the rules for what counts as a passing test.